Popular Posts

Fox News alert, the judge in Donald Trump's January 6th case just set a big trap for the former president. If you read the headlines, you'd believe that Judge Tanya Chutkin came out and ruled in Trump's favor on the state's proposed gag order, which would have completely barred him from discussing his case, documents, evidence, witnesses, the whole thing. Chutkin ruled that Trump is only barred from discussing sensitive information. Okay. Well, what constitutes sensitive information? Oh, nothing, just every single person interviewed by prosecutors because they could be witnesses. Well, that's going to be a problem because Trump happens to be running a presidential campaign against Mike Pence. Now, is Trump going to debate Mike Pence if he can't talk about Mike Pence? Chutkin doesn't care. During the hearings today, she told Trump's attorneys this. The fact that he is running a political campaign currently has to yield to the administration of justice. And if that means he can't say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just going to how it's going to be half to, adding that she'll be scrutinizing his statements very carefully. Do you really expect Trump to abide by these rules? The case is a ridiculous case. It's a first amendment case, but we don't want Trump to speak. So they want me, they take away your rights on first amendment. Now they sue because, so now I have one of these lunatic reporters back there saying, sir, we'd like to talk to you about your case or I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about it. Somehow that's not good for votes. Do you agree? When we say I can't talk, I'd love to, I will talk about it. I will. They're not taking away my first amendment. Trump's at his best when he's riffing off the cuff, obviously, and this order is just another attempt to keep him from speaking freely. Biden's Justice Department's already trying to lock him up in a courtroom from January until May, and anytime he steps out onto the trail, there's going to be a whole bunch of booby traps out there waiting for him. And that's the goal. Will Kane's a Fox and Friends weekend co-host. So Will, what do you think the chances are that he busts through this gag order the first night on the trail 100% sure bet, Jesse, take it to the bank and this will be a problem. This will be something for the judge to decide. Will I continue or will I be a participant in what's become lawfare? You know, it's true that you can restrict the defendant's speech. Jesse, you can say, look, a criminal trial takes precedent and normal circumstances you would say, well, that shows the lack of wisdom in the original prosecutor, the DOJ in going after Trump, you'd say, well, what evidence of humility shows some wisdom. You've compromised a political process by your pursuit of these weak charges. But I want to say this is not a normal situation. So what we're seeing play out is exactly as intended. It's not a lack of wisdom. It is purpose and intention. This is lawfare. This is using the justice system, the DOJ, the court system to influence an election. If you could control and good luck with actually implementing the control, but if you can control a candidate and what he says, then you can control the outcome of an election. So Barr is also off limits. If you think about it, I'm sure he was interviewed by the January 6th investigators. And so Trump can never bring up the fact that Barr knocked out the Mueller situation. He can never bring up this fact. He can't even tout his record as attorney general in his administration while running for office. Yeah. You know, when it comes to, for example, Mike Pence, I'm not worried. I don't think anybody should be worried about the interaction between Donald Trump and Mike Pence on a stage. And I say I'm not worried because I'm someone who would be worried about interference in the political process, not rooting for a particular outcome. I don't think there's going to be anything that influences the chasm between Mike Pence and Donald Trump. But what happens is Mike Pence can lodge all types of accusations. He can tell a story that Donald Trump can't rebut. And that can affect him then in turn in his general against Joe Biden. You know, and same thing as you point out with Barr, he just can't address any of the other allegations that people make. But the real question will be in the gray area. To your point earlier, he's not going to abide by this. So then the judge is going to have to decide how much am I going to get into the muck? How much am I going to sort out exactly all these statements and play referee in a political election, a presidential election? That's unbelievable. I mean, January 6th, prosecutors probably interviewed Nancy Pelosi. So I guess Trump can't talk about Nancy Pelosi either. Shots fired one way. This is going to be a fun one. Right. Exactly. Well, thanks so much. Have a great weekend. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I easily won the great state of Georgia in 2016, did a fantastic job as president for Georgia and the entire USA, received 10 million more votes than I got nationwide in 2016, got by far the most votes in history for a sitting president, but shockingly lost Georgia. All this despite winning nearby Alabama and South Carolina in record-setting landslides. Why did Georgia officials agree to sign that horrible one-sided consent decree? Nobody to this day has figured that out. Does anybody really believe I lost Georgia because I don't?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining us now, Chris Landau, former law clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia, former ambassador to Mexico. Chris, what are your thoughts on the integrity of this Georgia prosecution, given what we know about what she's done? Laura, obviously, these allegations against Fannie Willis are extremely serious, and this just shows if you are going to break all historical norms and go after it for the first time in American history, a former president and a current leading candidate for the presidency on criminal charges, you better have your ducks in a row. You better cross all your T's and dot all your I's. So what kind of judgment does this person have who's doing this? This is the person who made this momentous decision to charge the former president, and this person is allegedly hiring their secret lover and then going off on vacations funded by taxpayer dollars. Well, she didn't disclose any of this. I mean, not that that even would have mattered, but at least she would have disclosed it. She didn't disclose any of it, and then she goes to this church and she says she's not playing the race card, but of course, that's exactly what she's doing. No one cares about the color of the skin of her lover, but we do care about the fact that he's being sent to the White House either to deliver a message or get counsel and then get paid for it handsomely. Laura, we're now in the kind of silly phase of this thing, like when the academics a few weeks ago were defending plagiarism and saying it's no big deal when Claudine Gaye was accused of plagiarism, now we're going to see some of our alleged legal experts saying, oh, well, hiring your secret lover to be a special prosecutor and going off and having that person perhaps coordinate with the White House. I think that's one of the most serious allegations. We don't know to this day, I mean, there's kind of a very general statement on the billing record of why he was there, but it doesn't reveal anything. It's kind of an odd thing for him to just show up at the White House on two different occasions in 2020. I mean, in a state criminal prosecution, it raises very serious questions. Coordination. Again, talk about collusion, right? We heard that word an awful lot in the last administration. Is there collusion between the White House and these state prosecutions in New York and Georgia? I don't know, but I mean, you'd think these people would have the judgment if you were going to go out there and undertake this moment to pass. Unimpeachable judgment. Unimpeachable, you would think so, right? And so, again, I just think, scratch your head. This is backfiring on these people, though. And by the way, it's alleged that Nathan Wade billed 24 hours of work in one day. Now, you and I are used to having billed, you still bill hours, but I used to remember doing the six-minute increment bills at Skadden Arps. I hated billing, the billing records, all that. I hated doing billing. But 24 hours in a day, is that possible, Chris? Again, listen, Laura, that is certainly questionable, and I think that's one of the things that have to get looked at, and certainly, this is going to have to be resolved before these cases can go forward. I mean, you can't go with this cloud over the prosecutor. So, you know, again, if this is their A-team that they're bringing, that just makes you -- it raises a lot of questions. And Jack Smith, in his prosecution, he's supposedly the much more professional, seasoned prosecutor. What's new in that case? Well, you know, one of the really important things on that front is that, you know, again, he did not charge President Trump with insurrection. There's a federal crime called insurrection. A lot of people in this country think that's what the January 6 case is about. It is not. There is no charge of insurrection in that statute. That's why the Colorado and Maine things are insane. But more important, he actually charged them with this novel, untested legal theory that's now in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, if you're going to go after the president, the former president, the leading candidate, you better be pretty darn sure that you have a solid legal ground. This is not the case to be testing the outer boundaries of the law. And today we know that the Chevron case, which is another big administrative law case, is being considered at the Supreme Court for, I mean, perhaps, you know, a complete reversal. For people who aren't law geeks, tell us why that's so important. It's very important because, as we've seen in the last several decades, the administrative state, the deep state in Washington is just growing and growing. And FCC, EPA, FDA, all those three letter agencies have just started expanding their power massively. And there's this doctrine in the law. Again, it sounds boring, but it's very important to the way Americans live that courts have been deferring to agencies on question of agency power. And now that is being reconsidered as to is that really appropriate? Because these bureaucrats have massively expanded their power. And they're unaccountable. For the most part, unaccountable, once they do something, they're going to get rid of the independent contract. 100%. And, you know, our basic separation of powers and our democracy, our Republican principles have broken down because now Congress has delegated to these agencies all this legislative power. Well, I was encouraged in hearing parts of these oral arguments, they released the audio on that. Chris, great to see you. Always a pleasure. We've got a grab bag of legal topics.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.